Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

John M. Moe:>Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.

Carl Conard:... More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by "appositional" or"epexegetical" genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English "A Book of Apophthegms"--where "book" hardly means anythingat all without "of apophthegms" and the title might just as well be"Apophthegms." ...

I suppose you could argue that μορφῇ by itself is meaningless in this context without the genitivewhich modifies it. Grammatical terminology may vary and often complicates things further.

John M. Moe:>Epexegetical (or Genitive of Apposition, Defining). [WHICH IS or NAMELY>or CONSISTING OF] In apposition, two substantives in the same case>refer to the same thing. But an epexegetical genitive may follow a>substantive of any case and further identify that substantive.

Carl Conard:... More seriously, I now recognize what you meant by "appositional" or"epexegetical" genitive; again, I am not sure this merits a distinct term;it really is a variety of what has been called a genitive of definition asin the English "A Book of Apophthegms"--where "book" hardly means anythingat all without "of apophthegms" and the title might just as well be"Apophthegms." ...

I suppose you could argue that μορφῇ by itself is meaningless in this context without the genitivewhich modifies it. Grammatical terminology may vary and often complicates things further.

Thanks for your post.

I know what an epexegetical genitive is, but I'm asking cscase why he believes the genitives ( θεοῦ and δούλου ) at Phil. 2:6-8 are epexegetical.

I'm not so sure because ,for starters, with possessie genitives the head noun is almost invariably an entity rather than an abstract idea.

I think though, that there is an illusion to a non specific entity. Now, I would say Θεος is a monadic entity, it is not an abstract noun. so the person is specified. (I know you'd disagree, and that's fine.) δουλος may not have a definite person in mind but the idea of any servant in general (an indefenite entity, but an entity nonetheless). So the idea as I interpret it is "The Form which is God's and the form that belongs to a slave"

The least we can say, is that grammar leaves this possibility open to us.

I'm not so sure because ,for starters, with possessie genitives the head noun is almost invariably an entity rather than an abstract idea.

I think though, that there is an illusion to a non specific entity. Now, I would say Θεος is a monadic entity, it is not an abstract noun. so the person is specified. (I know you'd disagree, and that's fine.) δουλος may not have a definite person in mind but the idea of any servant in general (an indefenite entity, but an entity nonetheless). So the idea as I interpret it is "The Form which is God's and the form that belongs to a slave"

The least we can say, is that grammar leaves this possibility open to us.

Your question gave me pause for thought Taking another look, it does appear to be ascribing a "God" quality and a "Servant" Quality, so it very well could be attributive. Interesting to note is "αλλα"s separation of the two clauses indicating he had to "empty himself" of one quality to become the other.

Your question gave me pause for thought Taking another look, it does appear to be ascribing a "God" quality and a "Servant" Quality, so it very well could be attributive. Interesting to note is "αλλα"s separation of the two clauses indicating he had to "empty himself" of one quality to become the other.

"αλλα"s "separation of the two clauses" cannot address that issue at all. The operative word at Phil. 2:6-8 is αρπαγμον.

Is αρπαγμον a thing to be "grasped for" or something to be "retained" ?

Isaac Newton wrote: The operative word at Phil. 2:6-8 is αρπαγμον. Is αρπαγμον a thing to be "grasped for" or something to be "retained" ?

A thing to be grasped for. Jesus is the un-Adam. Adam grasped after being a god, literally grasped something from a tree that he hoped would make him like a god. Jesus instead chose humility and obedience, and a different kind of tree.

Adam too was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ before the fall. Paul means something more than this when applied to Jesus. Of course he means something less than identity with the Father. I think he means the same thing that John means in 1:1. θεὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

Isaac Newton wrote: The operative word at Phil. 2:6-8 is αρπαγμον. Is αρπαγμον a thing to be "grasped for" or something to be "retained" ?

A thing to be grasped for. Jesus is the un-Adam. Adam grasped after being a god, literally grasped something from a tree that he hoped would make him like a god. Jesus instead chose humility and obedience, and a different kind of tree.

Adam too was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ before the fall. Paul means something more than this when applied to Jesus. Of course he means something less than identity with the Father. I think he means the same thing that John means in 1:1. θεὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

I tend to agree.. Broughton and Southgate also put it very well;

"Paul is continuing this theme of contrasting Adam with Christ. Thus, in the passage still under consideration, seekig 'equality with God' is a reference to the subtle temptation by which the serpent in Eden induced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit; 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil' (Genesis 3:5). It was this desire to be equal with God that was the alluring prospect, and so Eve reached out and grasped the fruit, with disasterous results. The relevance to Paul's theme of humility is clear. Adam through pride grasped at the opportunity for equality with God, but Jesus, the second Adam, although a perfect manifestation of the attributes and character of God, did not seek to grasp a shortcut to divine equality. Clearly this was the message Paul wanted to get across. Christ, unlike Adam, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, or snatched."

Not difficult at all to grasp (pun intended) apostle Paul's point at Phil. 2:6-8 IMHO..

If you read Wallace's classification of genitives, some of them seem to me to derive their force more from the meaning of the head noun than from the genitive itself. For example, he talks about a genitive of subordination and says that it applies to expressions like 'ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ'. Well, kings rule over nations, and so surely the subordination idea is coming from that, rather than from the genitive itself. Wallace says this himself, calling it a lexico-semantic category, which relates only to head nouns that carry the meaning of rule or authority. But one could also see 'ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ' as a possessive genitive - Israel has a king, whose job is to rule over the nation. Or even as an objective genitive, thinking of 'king' as a verbal noun from βασιλεύω.

Another example is his category of partitive genitive, which he admits only applies to head nouns that convey the meaning of a portion.

Recently I found something by Zerwick, citing A. Deissman, to say that the grammarian classification of genitives, while useful, can also be misleading, and claiming that the fundamental force of the genitive is 'the appurtenance of one notion' to another. 'The exact nature.. of the relation between the notions, depends upon context and subject matter, so that of itself the use of the genitive may have as many varieties as there are ways in which two notions may be associated.

The relation of a form to that which it is a form of is quite particular, and doesn't necessarily fit easily into the usual categories. To be playful, I suggest that this is a 'formative genitive'. More seriously, it seems to me that we probably can't determine too much about the meaning of Philippians 2:6 from the genitive case of θεοῦ, since it is so flexible and can accommodate such a wide range of relationships between two nouns.

Andrew Chapman wrote:Recently I found something by Zerwick, citing A. Deissman, to say that the grammarian classification of genitives, while useful, can also be misleading, and claiming that the fundamental force of the genitive is 'the appurtenance of one notion' to another. 'The exact nature.. of the relation between the notions, depends upon context and subject matter, so that of itself the use of the genitive may have as many varieties as there are ways in which two notions may be associated.Andrew

χαῖρε, φίλε Ἀνδρεῖε!

Stephen Hughes has suggested that one way to understand these genitives is to transform the phrase into a participle or relative clause. Thus your ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ from John 1:49 would be not only the obvious

In my humble opinion, this is a better approach than Wallace's categories. If you do this with enough genitives, you began to see some basic patterns (φέρειν and διδόναι come up a lot) but at the same time you realize, as you have said, that a lot happens semantically between the head and genitive nouns that must be supplied from context (and theology.)

Thanks, Markos. I do just have one further question about genitives, which is whether there might be some primacy to the possessive idea. It might come from the primitive history of language - that after giving names to different types of thing, the next natural step might be to say 'this is John's house', or 'Bill's spear' etc. I find I naturally tend to try this idea first, to see if it works. I am not sure if this a habit that I need to dispose of, or is actually consonant with the structure of most languages, probably including both Greek and English (with our 'of', which can also accommodate a wide range of meanings, much as the Greek genitive does, although not identical in range).